Mafia The Game III: Kinder and Gentler

The Game Room
1861

[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts]
One thing I don’t understand is why I’m not dead yet. By all rights, I should be… But at the very LEAST, I feel that either I or tirial should be as we have been and became some of the more/most analytical posters and thinkers, plus we’re the only two left who have experience in the game.

So it stands to reason (at least in my own head) that wayyyyy back three nights ago, they (they being scum) would have tried to take one of us out. I think, since they could only choose one and I’m still alive right now, that they chose to hit tirial and then, following your part up above that I had also mentioned earlier, recruited him.

Whether or not this is saying she was/is the Doctor, I don’t know. Maybe I am saying I think that unconciously. But I don’t know. I’m not sure. Maybe it’s possible that the Night Watchman was lucky both times on her and so they thought she was the Doc and recruited.

Maybe again that I’m wayyyy off and the Night Watchman was lucky with someone else, twice, that they tried to hit (or they tried to hit the Doc, who is someone else other than tirial). But again, in my mind, it doesn’t make sense not to try to get either her or I out way back then…at least one of us.
[/QUOTE]

Your insistence that one between you and tirial has me a bit thrown for a loop. Obviously, I understand that if you’re the two who have provided the most analysis, thus it would seem you’d be the most threatening to the mafia. Hence, one thing that I throw out as a possibility, assuming you’re town for a moment, is that maybe they deliberately aren’t targetting either of you. That is, you could be dead wrong; knowing that you’re experienced, they might think the town will follow your lead and get a couple of pro-town players lynched for them, and then turn on you for leading them astray. OTOH, what if you’re right; maybe they’re hoping that you’ll get discreditted because people will think you’ve been recruited, and will largely ignore you or even deliberately go against your suggestions. Unfortunately, this question can’t be answered without your or SCL’s death. IOW, you’re wondering why you’re alive assuming that your analysis is good; but you’re alive, so there must be something else amiss… right?

1862

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
Your insistence that one between you and tirial has me a bit thrown for a loop. Obviously, I understand that if you’re the two who have provided the most analysis, thus it would seem you’d be the most threatening to the mafia. Hence, one thing that I throw out as a possibility, assuming you’re town for a moment, is that maybe they deliberately aren’t targetting either of you. That is, you could be dead wrong; knowing that you’re experienced, they might think the town will follow your lead and get a couple of pro-town players lynched for them, and then turn on you for leading them astray. OTOH, what if you’re right; maybe they’re hoping that you’ll get discreditted because people will think you’ve been recruited, and will largely ignore you or even deliberately go against your suggestions. Unfortunately, this question can’t be answered without your or SCL’s death. IOW, you’re wondering why you’re alive assuming that your analysis is good; but you’re alive, so there must be something else amiss… right?
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the bolded part is the only thing that makes sense to me. I mean, maybe it is I’m way off base. But from what I’ve observed so far and explained, I don’t think I am. It’s all very reasonable and would explain and make sense of a lot of things so far.

So the only thing that’s left (and that I considered before) is what you’re saying there.

It would also explain why the three people I’m suspicious of at all are saying they trust me so much. Trying to garner my trust in the Daytimes and keeping as far away from me at Night as possible so people won’t go off and vote for SCL right away the next day because everyone would see I’m town?

Again, makes the most sense if you put it that I’m town and she’s scum.

I guess time will tell.

1863

Idle Thoughts, you are so convinced that one of the two of us is scum; do you realize what is going to happen to you if you succeed in having me lynched? When the truth comes out, you will have pointed your finger right at yourself.

It is looking like my vote this round is going to be for zuma. Omi no Kami’s heritage combined with not hearing from zuma is really making me think something is up.

Darn it - I don’t like not having any really strong suspicions. I was very sure of my votes for fluiddruid, and reasonably sure of the vote for Lemur866. I just don’t have that degree of confidence in voting for anyone right now.

1864

[QUOTE=SnakesCatLady]
Idle Thoughts, you are so convinced that one of the two of us is scum; do you realize what is going to happen to you if you succeed in having me lynched? When the truth comes out, you will have pointed your finger right at yourself.
[/QUOTE]

Okay, I’m a bit confused here. You seem to be saying on one hand that he’s incriminating himself because he’s fighting so hard to get you lynched such that when you show up town, he’ll get lynched next. On the other, you’re not really clearly stating your suspicion, or lack thereof, whether he’s going after you hard because he’s scum, or because he’s just a misguided townie. So my question to you is, which do you think he is? If he is scum, and you’re town, then he knows that, and knows that he’d likely incriminate himself after driving the vote for you so hard. So wouldn’t it make sense that he’d not do it so intently? However, if he’s pro-town, then wouldn’t you want to NOT have the finger pointed at him when you turn up town upon your lynch? IOW, based on your logic, that you’re pro-town, and he’s going to get lynched when you turn up pro-town, wouldn’t that mean that he’d be really dumb scum to pursue you so hard?

I’m not thinking it’s a scum tell from Zuma at this point, as he does have 1800+ posts to read in order to catch up, but I would definitely like to at least have at least some cursory thoughts so we know where he is in catching up.

Similarly, Rachm Qoch STILL have fewer posts than NAF and dnooman whom have both been dead since Night one and Day two respectively. He does seem to be the type to post less often with more content, but still…

1865

[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts]
Yeah, the bolded part is the only thing that makes sense to me. I mean, maybe it is I’m way off base. But from what I’ve observed so far and explained, I don’t think I am. It’s all very reasonable and would explain and make sense of a lot of things so far.

So the only thing that’s left (and that I considered before) is what you’re saying there.

It would also explain why the three people I’m suspicious of at all are saying they trust me so much. Trying to garner my trust in the Daytimes and keeping as far away from me at Night as possible so people won’t go off and vote for SCL right away the next day because everyone would see I’m town?

Again, makes the most sense if you put it that I’m town and she’s scum.

I guess time will tell.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll go ahead and say that the reason that I said I trusted you on the first or second day was because you were suspicious of me and very vocal in general, and I wanted to try to show you that I was on your side. It was kind of a lame move, and now I can see that it looks very sketchy. (But I was scared!!) I’ve been trying not to tell anyone that I trust him/her explicitly these days. As for the others, I’m still suspicious of SCL, but Diggit was the one who started the lynch bandwagon on Lemur, almost out of nowhere. I’m thinking that any scum votes for Lemur came at the end, which leaves nesta and Blaster.

Cookies, I’m trying to see what it is that you’re saying about me, but maybe you’re just pointing out that if you’re “suspicious,” then I should be “suspicious” too. I can only say the same thing as you…I can’t change my past votes. I feel particularly dumb about yesterday, but I was really gun-shy after my record of votes for Lightnin’ suddenly became a list of townie votes. I had been feeling pretty confident about my record until then. And how exactly is my being the 6th vote out of 12 for fluiddruid a “late” vote? It was very much in the middle.

I’m not sure what to think about trying to deduce scum from “who said what about possible recruitment.” It’s making my head spin, and I’m sure it would be a really easy subject to “fake town” on. I’m betting that the Mafia haven’t been talking about the possibilities of the recruitment much at all, or if they have, it’s been very similar to what we townies have said. So I’m not sure I feel all that great about that line of reasoning. Don’t you think it would be very easy for Mafia to hedge on that topic and then point fingers at anyone who says anything more definite? I do.

By the way, votes all accounted for. See below.

1866

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
Okay, I’m a bit confused here. You seem to be saying on one hand that he’s incriminating himself because he’s fighting so hard to get you lynched such that when you show up town, he’ll get lynched next. On the other, you’re not really clearly stating your suspicion, or lack thereof, whether he’s going after you hard because he’s scum, or because he’s just a misguided townie. So my question to you is, which do you think he is? If he is scum, and you’re town, then he knows that, and knows that he’d likely incriminate himself after driving the vote for you so hard. So wouldn’t it make sense that he’d not do it so intently? However, if he’s pro-town, then wouldn’t you want to NOT have the finger pointed at him when you turn up town upon your lynch? IOW, based on your logic, that you’re pro-town, and he’s going to get lynched when you turn up pro-town, wouldn’t that mean that he’d be really dumb scum to pursue you so hard?
snip

[/QUOTE]

For quite a while I was sure Idle Thoughts was town; I am no longer so sure of that. If he is town I don’t want him to get lynched. I don’t have any sure way of knowing if he is town, formerly-town-now-recruited-scum, or scum from the beginning. That is my problem; or rather it will be the problem of the town if he is successful. I’m not sure enough that he is scum to vote for him, but I certainly don’t want to be lynched - for one reason, there have been enough townies lynched already.

1867

Crap, crap, crap. I thought I’d added my signature. I’ve been updating it at least twice a day, if there are new votes to count.

(By the way, Gadarene, if I die, can I keep this spreadsheet going? As a public service to the town? Or should I try and leave it to a successor?)

1868

[QUOTE=SnakesCatLady]
For quite a while I was sure Idle Thoughts was town; I am no longer so sure of that. If he is town I don’t want him to get lynched. I don’t have any sure way of knowing if he is town, formerly-town-now-recruited-scum, or scum from the beginning. That is my problem; or rather it will be the problem of the town if he is successful. I’m not sure enough that he is scum to vote for him, but I certainly don’t want to be lynched - for one reason, there have been enough townies lynched already.
[/QUOTE]

That’s the vibe I was getting from you. My point is, I don’t want it to be a foregone conclusion that he get’s lynched if you get lynched and turn up town, because it’s entirely possible (and likely, IMO) that he can be pro-town and still want you lynched. IOW, if you are pro-town, you need to take a different approach than what is essentially “I’ll show up town, and you’ll get lynched next”. This is simply a different flavor of the kind of defense post that is expected from scum, to make people reluctant to cast votes, and question if the voters aren’t, in fact, scum themselves.

1869

[QUOTE=nesta]

About my late Lemur866 vote. Yes, it was a “me too” vote at the end of the day which made no difference in whether he was lynched, but I put my vote on who I thought was most likely scum at that point, and I’m glad I was right for once.

You’re wrong about my not suspecting him before, though. He has been hovering high on my suspicion list for most of the game. I even put him in my top four in post 1364.
[/QUOTE]

I stand corrected. You had him on your list, but not recently. Maybe you did think he was suspicious all along.

But that does even more closely paralell Lemur’s vote for SCL on Day 5, which was the tipping point for me deciding to put my vote on him.

1870

[QUOTE=Millit the Frail]

Cookies, I’m trying to see what it is that you’re saying about me, but maybe you’re just pointing out that if you’re “suspicious,” then I should be “suspicious” too.
[/QUOTE]

That is all I was trying to say. I had been digging through the thread for the votes in my post for almost an hour (on and off, while working :smiley: ) but it still managed to come off rushed as I was trying to dodge out the door at 5pm.

I came home to broken broadband, so in case it decides to go wonky again, I’m going to get my carried-over from yesterday vote for DiggitCamara in nice and early. I’ll hopefully be able to read and post a bit during our layover at LAX tomorrow morning too.

1871

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]

And, to bring it full circle, I’m not even really sure why this is such a major question now. We still definitely have some scum who have always been scum and were not recruited. That is, we need to focus on catching them first, and if we happen to find the recruit along the way, cool beans; otherwise, I’m not sure it’s something to fret about, because we don’t have any confirmed townies to be concerned about whether or not they switched alliances.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a relevant question simply because, if we conclude it didn’t happen, then we can use each player’s history going back to day one to acertain whether they’re pro-town. If we can’t confidently conclude that the recruitment didn’t happen, then the slate is wiped clean with regards to what you can use to consider a player trustworthy.

1872

[QUOTE=Rachm Qoch]
It’s a relevant question simply because, if we conclude it didn’t happen, then we can use each player’s history going back to day one to acertain whether they’re pro-town. If we can’t confidently conclude that the recruitment didn’t happen, then the slate is wiped clean with regards to what you can use to consider a player trustworthy.
[/QUOTE]

Right, but if a player has been untrustworthy from the start, and there’s at least two or three original scum still out there, I think it’s not in our interest to be focusing on finding the recruit. It’s clear to me, based on the insistence of the two lynched scum so far, that they want us to focus on the recruitment because we’ll get paranoid and start going “hey, he’s acting differently than he was two days ago, maybe he was recruited”, then we end up lynching a townie we wouldn’t have otherwise suspected if we weren’t focusing on the recruit instead of the original scum. Now, I’m not saying we should ignore the recruit, who is likely among us, but I don’t want to spend time looking for this shift in strategy in a recruit, when we still have at least two or three other players with an entire game worth of scumminess.

Agh… I really don’t feel like I’m doing a good job in explaining my point. :frowning:

1873

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
Right, but if a player has been untrustworthy from the start, and there’s at least two or three original scum still out there, I think it’s not in our interest to be focusing on finding the recruit. It’s clear to me, based on the insistence of the two lynched scum so far, that they want us to focus on the recruitment because we’ll get paranoid and start going “hey, he’s acting differently than he was two days ago, maybe he was recruited”, then we end up lynching a townie we wouldn’t have otherwise suspected if we weren’t focusing on the recruit instead of the original scum. Now, I’m not saying we should ignore the recruit, who is likely among us, but I don’t want to spend time looking for this shift in strategy in a recruit, when we still have at least two or three other players with an entire game worth of scumminess.

Agh… I really don’t feel like I’m doing a good job in explaining my point. :frowning:
[/QUOTE]

Oh I get your point. However I think there is at least one poster who is currently climbing straight up my scumdar, both due to going after someone I think may be town, and because of a change in posting styles.

[Quote=SnakesCatLady]
For some reason, I’m starting more and more to think Idle Thoughts has been recruited. Why would the mafia recruit tirial and not him?
[/Quote]

I did wonder so I had a close look at Idle Thought’s posts. I don’t see his scum/town reasoning working out (Why would the mafia get involved in a town/town thing, or help one of their own lynch a townie - it could only expose them?) And the scum/scum option is missing.

[Quote=Idle Thoughts]
So far that’s not happened. I’d think that they’d all vote for her (or at least help it along) and make her death a done deal and then everyone would be on me too.
[/Quote]
This applies equally well as a reason not to get involved if you are scum and she is town - an option you skipped over in the post where you replied to Blastermaster.

[Quote=Idle Thoughts]
This makes me believe that, since it’s six votes to lynch, there is three members of the mafia left. That would mean recruitment did happen. I could be wrong, though, as, again, I’m just speaking from experience of being a host."
[/Quote]
You are assuming 4 members of the mafia originally. Its possible there were more, and that (as on preview we found out) Gadarene doesn’t follow that rule. Unless you have information we don’t.

Post 1856 - Idle Thoughts. Interesting pronoun change. Also interesting additions of “haha” and taunts to your posts since the last no-kill night. Has anyone else noticed this?

I also note the night before last was the last “no Kill” night and they changed tactics last night. If we go by the “honest scum” version, then either we had 3 blocks or three blocks and a recruit. Which raises the question, why the change? I’m wondering if it means they now have experience on their side.

I’m not trusted. You are. Who would they recruit?

Particularly P1856, where he refers to the recruit as “him” and then me as “she”. Sounds like he doesn’t think I was the recruit. If as he says its a choice between me and him…

[Quote=Idle Thoughts]
So it stands to reason (at least in my own head) that wayyyyy back three nights ago, they (they being scum) would have tried to take one of us out. I think, since they could only choose one and I’m still alive right now, that they chose to hit tirial and then, following your part up above that I had also mentioned earlier, recruited him.

Whether or not this is saying she was/is the Doctor, I don’t know. Maybe I am saying I think that unconciously. But I don’t know. I’m not sure. Maybe it’s possible that the Night Watchman was lucky both times on her and so they thought she was the Doc and recruited.
[/QUOTE]

[Quote=Blastermaster]
Unfortunately, this question can’t be answered without your or SCL’s death. IOW, you’re wondering why you’re alive assuming that your analysis is good; but you’re alive, so there must be something else amiss… right?
[/QUOTE]
I wonder…I strongly suspect if SCL is town that I could see why the mafia would go after her, as she has voted pretty consistantly against them.
To be honest, I am beginning to wonder if this isn’t a scum v. scum situation.

Diggit: P1848

  • when did I misrepresent nesta’s suspicion history? I didn’t think I’d commented on him much at all? On preview I note that nesta corrected you - it was Rachm Qoch.
1874

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
Right, but if a player has been untrustworthy from the start, and there’s at least two or three original scum still out there, I think it’s not in our interest to be focusing on finding the recruit. It’s clear to me, based on the insistence of the two lynched scum so far, that they want us to focus on the recruitment because we’ll get paranoid and start going “hey, he’s acting differently than he was two days ago, maybe he was recruited”, then we end up lynching a townie we wouldn’t have otherwise suspected if we weren’t focusing on the recruit instead of the original scum. Now, I’m not saying we should ignore the recruit, who is likely among us, but I don’t want to spend time looking for this shift in strategy in a recruit, when we still have at least two or three other players with an entire game worth of scumminess.

Agh… I really don’t feel like I’m doing a good job in explaining my point. :frowning:
[/QUOTE]

Understood. The scum is still scum, and we should never lose sight of that fact. The big problem with having a recruit in the game is that even the most slightly credible suggestion that it has been carried out effectively wipes out the “townie end” of your suspicion list, but leaves the “scummy end” intact. So the hypothetical benefit of confirmed townies is dramatically reduced compared to the previous games. This tips the balance in favor of the mafia more than simply adding an extra name to their roster.

1875

[QUOTE=tirial]
Post 1856 - Idle Thoughts. Interesting pronoun change. Also interesting additions of “haha” and taunts to your posts since the last no-kill night. Has anyone else noticed this?
…
Particularly P1856, where he refers to the recruit as “him” and then me as “she”. Sounds like he doesn’t think I was the recruit. If as he says its a choice between me and him…
[/QUOTE]

Just because I’m not sure about the quality of this reasoning, I wouldn’t put too much weight behind **Idle Thoughts ** using “him” to refer to the recruit. My observation, and especially true for men, is that it’s natural to refer to someone of unknown gender as male. OTOH, if he had switched from saying “her” to “him” or vice versa, THEN I think I might be a slip; otherwise, it just seems like an artifact of the language and not a tell. Of course, I could be wrong…

I assume you meant “3 blocks or two blocks and a recruit”. Which change in tactics are you refering to… the “honest scum” tactic? Isn’t that more or less how Lemur was playing the whole game? I’m not sure so much that it was a change in tactics as it was that we now have a better picture of the tactics the scum are using because we’ve caught two of them.

I’m also not really seeing the idea that you’re decisively less trusted than he is. IIRC, only he and I have expressed distrust in you in the last day or two. The basis of my distrust for you was primarily that you were a likely recruit candidate, the recurit has likely occured, and I noticed a shift in your style. OTOH, this whole thing between him and SCL has me thrown for a loop (as I imagine it does others). In his pursuit of her, he’s definitely made some mistakes (as you and I have both pointed out), and I’m simply not sure what to make of them at this point, but I’m not inclined to necessarily assume he is pro-town. IOW, at least from my perspective, it just doesn’t seem fair to categorically state that either of you is trusted or not trusted; I’d be hard pressed to describe anyone as “trusted”, and only describe SCL as “not trusted” simply because of the amount of suspicion on her from the last few days and that she is the current vote leader (right?).

This was precisely my point in mentioning that he’d interesting neglected the scum vs. scum scenario. If he’s fair enough to mention a Townie SCL vs Scum Idle, why not fair enough to mention both being scum? If SCL is scum, and pushed hard for the lynch of fluiddruid; then it wouldn’t be beyond reason that **Idle Thoughts ** is employing a similar strategy with her, hoping that either the town says “BAH! They’re just a couple of loony town folk.” or we eventually do lynch one or the other and say either “Bah! He/she couldn’t possibly be scum now.” Of course that scenario only confuses the matter more. :confused:

1876

All I can promise is that it is not a scum/scum scenario. I just don’t know about Idle Thoughts - I hadn’t noticed the pronoun shifting refered to above but I had noticed a subtle change in his posting style - almost like he’s enjoying trying to get me lynched. I do know that if he had been so vehement about going after another player I would be after him if the player turned out to be town.

Actually, I’m not really worried about Idle Thoughts right now; there is nothing I can say or do to make him change his mind. I need to move on and decide where to place my vote.

I am worried about the players who really aren’t participating. Come to the Dark… has popped in to vote for Diggit Camera. Hal Briston, nesta and Rachm Qoch haven’t had a lot to say, although they have voted. Omi/zuma has more posts than either nesta or Rachm Qoch, but a very noticable lack of votes. I know zuma just subbed in recently, but we need participation here. Barring some revealing event, my vote is going to go to someone who isn’t participating, because I don’t see that they are doing the town any good. I don’t want to make a mistake and help lynch a townie, but if they aren’t participating it makes me feel like they have something to hide.

1877

[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
Whatever floats your boat or sinks your sub. Conveniently for you, it isn’t a vote justification I can really defend against. My past votes are what they are, for the reasons I stated at the time that I made them, and I can’t change them.
(snip)

[/QUOTE]

Well, I think that point has been made and made again. Nevertheless: it’s precisely that fact that helps us along.

Several of us emphasized the random nature of the first day’s voting round because we have nothing to base our votes on. After the first day (or maybe even after the third day) we had voting patterns, votes, vote justifications to analyze and try to ferret out scum.

Your question told me, essentially, to disregard anything that has happened before. Funny enough, it was precisely my analysis of Lemur866’s actions on the 3rd day which led to vote for him. It’s my analysis of that day that leads me to believe that (at least up to that point) IdleThought was town. It’s my analysis of **Lemur866 **and fluiddruid’s patterns plus SnakeCatLady’s voting pattern that lead me to believe that **SnakesCatLady ** is town.

You say you told us your reasons to vote the way you voted at the time you voted. I’ll have to look at that again, of course, but what struck me about your reasons was that they were not enough to explain your actions (ymmv)

1878

[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
(snip)

[ul]
[li]did not vote to lynch Lemur: Idle, Millit, Hal[/li][li]voted to lynch Lightnin’ (which you didn’t bring up, but I will): DiggitCamara, Millit the Frail, nesta[/li][li]voted “late” for fluiddruid: Millit the Frail, Hal Briston, Rachm Qoch [/li][li]voted to lynch Projammer: nesta, Millit the Frail, Rachm Qoch[/li][/ul]

(snip)
[/QUOTE]

Your last point does not really correspond with why I included that fact.

Your vote for fluiddruid came when she had the vote lead versus **Projammer **(6-3). Which is similar to Lemur866’s vote which he made when she had the lead (5-2). (btw, **nesta ** voted for fluiddruid)

And your vote for **fluiddruid **was just after Lemur866’s. It was the third to last (from 11 votes against her). Which I call late. (ymmv)

I don’t think pointing your finger at someone else is the best defense. However, I may have to take look at Millit later on as well.

1879

[QUOTE=SnakesCatLady]
All I can promise is that it is not a scum/scum scenario. I just don’t know about Idle Thoughts - I hadn’t noticed the pronoun shifting refered to above but I had noticed a subtle change in his posting style - almost like he’s enjoying trying to get me lynched. I do know that if he had been so vehement about going after another player I would be after him if the player turned out to be town.

Actually, I’m not really worried about Idle Thoughts right now; there is nothing I can say or do to make him change his mind. I need to move on and decide where to place my vote.

I am worried about the players who really aren’t participating. Come to the Dark… has popped in to vote for Diggit Camera. Hal Briston, nesta and Rachm Qoch haven’t had a lot to say, although they have voted. Omi/zuma has more posts than either nesta or Rachm Qoch, but a very noticable lack of votes. I know zuma just subbed in recently, but we need participation here. Barring some revealing event, my vote is going to go to someone who isn’t participating, because I don’t see that they are doing the town any good. I don’t want to make a mistake and help lynch a townie, but if they aren’t participating it makes me feel like they have something to hide.
[/QUOTE]

So I’m not really participating, and I just “popped in” to vote for Diggit? Seriously? I’m getting married tomorrow, but I’m still sitting here in the middle of the airport with my laptop just to keep tabs on the game(s).

How quickly things go from “reading your mind” to being suspiciously lurking. :stuck_out_tongue:

As I’ve not survived this far in any game I’ve played yet, perhaps I’m ignorant of some facets of the game. Is the expectation that the ever-decreasing number of players are supposed to maintain the same volume of posts in the thread as was provided by all of the warm bodies when the game started?

Diggit: So your issues are that my voting history has dead townies in it + I’m too late to the party when I vote to lynch scum + any vote I’ve made has been made without sufficiently verbose and unique justification, including, I assume, my votes for you.

I can at least comment on the third one. If a player ends up voting for someone who has already been voted for, there’s a fine line between being perceived as a bandwagoning sheep, incapable of original thought (which can be seen as scummy) and potentially over-extending into a vague/obscure (though unique) justification for the vote (which can also be seen as scummy.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that there are a finite number of strong justifiable reasons for voting for someone, as opposed to an infinite number. If I’m not the first to vote for someone, the chances are that some (if not all) of my reasons have already been stated. My personal style is to try and minimize the "me too"s and also minimize the over-stretching into the unique. That covers the votes that haven’t been for you.

Does anyone besides Diggit want me to further explain my votes for him?

1880

[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
Is the expectation that the ever-decreasing number of players are supposed to maintain the same volume of posts in the thread as was provided by all of the warm bodies when the game started?
[/QUOTE]

Geez, I hope not! And happy wedding, btw.

I know that the weird dichotomy between Idle and SCL might be a setup. However, I feel like I want to take the bait anyway. I’ve been suspicious of SCL for a long time, so that may be the best place to put my vote based on my own conscience. The “wait and see, when I turn up town, they’ll kill you” line doesn’t make her look good. So I want to find out what she is.

If she’s really Mafia, that’s good, of course. And if she’s a townie, we get the consolation prize, of getting to go string up Idle, who is looking more and more shady as this thing goes on. The “Oh, gee, why haven’t they killed or recruited me yet?” repeated over and over again…it feels scummy. Recruited-scummy? Perhaps.

I guess I think that the situation is either scum/town or scum/scum. Idle is working way too hard for this for him to be anything but very confident town or reverse-psychology-using Mafia (the kind who kill their own to make themselves look good). Either way, SCL should get the noose. And we shouldn’t discount Idle even if we get ourselves a Mafia! I’ve got a long time to change my mind, and I may if this thing falls apart, but for now I’ll vote SnakesCatLady.